It is widely known that Arizona is a red state and that there are a lot of religious people that believe in one form of the bible or another, whether it be the New Testament, Old Testament, or some other variation of it. So the following are my views of a recent television show.
The show I was just watching the Discovery times channel, and watched a show about King David in Israel. The show explained the differences between the stories found in the bible and the stories told by historians. The bible told a story of a kind and gentle David who was a good king that was chosen by the people to unite Israel. The bible seemed to tell a story of a king that you would never expect of any other king, except for a couple stories in the bible that told about who he really was.
The show explained that there was evidence that David was a highly ambitious and cruel individual that would do anything and everything to achieve power. The historians also said that he wasn't loved like the bible said he was, which the bible hinted at but left excuses for why revolts against him took place, but was actually had wide spread hatred against him. In other words, he was just like the other ambitious kings found through out history, who were greedy, ambitious and power hungry.
So, if the bible can embellish the stories of one of it's most honorable, lawful, and genuinely good heros, why wouldn't the writers embellish on it's other heros. My point is, why would so many people preach the words of text written centuries ago and modified to fit the current rulers needs for centuries to come. How could you place your total faith in ancient text written to embellish the nobility of it's kings?
Embellishing David
|
Posted By: Normalized Vector Posted on: Oct. 24, 2005 at 3:56 PM |
2.9 / 5
Based on 10 ratings.
|
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
Oct. 26, 2005 at 02:25:24 PM
|
||
| The whole "king" David story doesn't hold up any way because the archeological evidence from that time (around 1000 BCE) shows that not enough people lived in the area around Jerusalem for a king to have ruled over. David supposedly had a son named Solomon who built an empire over an even larger area and engaged in ambitious building projects, but again, we have no physical evidence for his existence, either, even though archeologists have found enough artifacts from other ancient kings in that part of the world to fill entire museums.
|
||







del.icio.us
Digg It!


Report Abuse